The History Thread
•
Page 5

meme wrote:
The US thinks as it does because of tyranny and oppression. One of the arguments against gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that it's designed to grant the people the physical power to overthrow government should it run rampant.

This is such a ridiculous argument isn't it? We want people to have guns so they can reserve the right to commit treason.

The second amendment was conceived with armed resistance against a foreign power in mind, not Big Gubmint.

It was both, really. They believed making an armed militia out of the people would mean they wouldn't need a standing army controlled by the government, but that also leaving the power with the people would give them the power to overthrow that government if it got out of hand. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - the free state itself is explained elsewhere in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a country that can revolt against tyrrany.

meme wrote:
The US thinks as it does because of tyranny and oppression. One of the arguments against gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that it's designed to grant the people the physical power to overthrow government should it run rampant.

This is such a ridiculous argument isn't it? We want people to have guns so they can reserve the right to commit treason.

It sounds ridiculous now, but at the time it made absolutely perfect sense. That's literally what happened - the rebelling colonists in America committed treason against Britain in order to fight against the tyrannical government. If you drill down into the Revolution itself, you'll see that they basically only won by sheer luck alone. They were outmanned and outgunned, and it was only when the French ended up getting properly involved and began harassing Britain elsewhere in the world to draw their attention away from the Americas that the tide really turned. It's no anomaly that the treaty ending the Revolutionary War was signed in Paris. The 2nd Amendment was in part to assure that, should a similar situation occur again (either from an opposing nation or its own government), the people could stand on their own two feet about it. Makes less sense now, though, as I said.

meme wrote:
The US thinks as it does because of tyranny and oppression. One of the arguments against gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that it's designed to grant the people the physical power to overthrow government should it run rampant.

This is such a ridiculous argument isn't it? We want people to have guns so they can reserve the right to commit treason.

The second amendment was conceived with armed resistance against a foreign power in mind, not Big Gubmint.

It was both, really. They believed making an armed militia out of the people would mean they wouldn't need a standing army controlled by the government, but that also leaving the power with the people would give them the power to overthrow that government if it got out of hand. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - the free state itself is explained elsewhere in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a country that can revolt against tyrrany.

No, it wasn't. There's no suggestion that the federal government itself was considered a likely aggressor against whom the self defence might be required. That is pure fiction.

The second amendment, inserted in 1791 (about 15 years after American War of Independence) was a response to that and the desire never again to be subjugated any European power. The founding fathers needed the populace to be ready for battle - against a foreign power, in particular the English, with a militia that was "regulated" by the new American government. The fledgling republic relied, at least to some extent, upon its citizens to bring their own arms and other equipment into battle against the aggressor. And it had to be regulated by the federal government since national defence is, and always has been, a federal issue, not a State one.

By contrast, the reading of the Second Amendment to infer "a private milita to resist the federal government" is inconsistent with a new nation, proud of its generals who led them in overthrowing their British "oppressors"; a nation pre-occupied with maintaining a sufficient government regulated militia of the kind used very recently to deter British re-invasion (which was still feared and possible for many years after the revolution).

The fear of the British lasted until after the War of 1812 (in which the US was still at war with Britain - and Britain was still hoping it might get its US colonies back).

Never has the US government urged that the citizens should arm themselves against the US government, nor has this been contemplated in any law of government. That is bollocks. To impute this to the founding fathers stretches all bounds of credibility. They had no interest in creating a country only to to see it violently overthrown from within.

I think it's silly to read some "Ayn Randian" doctrine of "suspicion of government" (a reaction to 20th century Fascism/Communism) into an 18th century document written at a time when thoughts of those sorts of ideologies weren't even on the horizon.

meme wrote:
The US thinks as it does because of tyranny and oppression. One of the arguments against gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that it's designed to grant the people the physical power to overthrow government should it run rampant.

This is such a ridiculous argument isn't it? We want people to have guns so they can reserve the right to commit treason.

The second amendment was conceived with armed resistance against a foreign power in mind, not Big Gubmint.

It was both, really. They believed making an armed militia out of the people would mean they wouldn't need a standing army controlled by the government, but that also leaving the power with the people would give them the power to overthrow that government if it got out of hand. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - the free state itself is explained elsewhere in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a country that can revolt against tyrrany.

No, it wasn't. There's no suggestion that the federal government itself was considered a likely aggressor against whom the self defence might be required. That is pure fiction.

The second amendment, inserted in 1791 (about 15 years after American War of Independence) was a response to that and the desire never again to be subjugated any European power. The founding fathers needed the populace to be ready for battle - against a foreign power, in particular the English, with a militia that was "regulated" by the new American government. The fledgling republic relied, at least to some extent, upon its citizens to bring their own arms and other equipment into battle against the aggressor. And it had to be regulated by the federal government since national defence is, and always has been, a federal issue, not a State one.

By contrast, the reading of the Second Amendment to infer "a private milita to resist the federal government" is inconsistent with a new nation, proud of its generals who led them in overthrowing their British "oppressors"; a nation pre-occupied with maintaining a sufficient government regulated militia of the kind used very recently to deter British re-invasion (which was still feared and possible for many years after the revolution).

The fear of the British lasted until after the War of 1812 (in which the US was still at war with Britain - and Britain was still hoping it might get its US colonies back).

Never has the US government urged that the citizens should arm themselves against the US government, nor has this been contemplated in any law of government. That is bollocks. To impute this to the founding fathers stretches all bounds of credibility. They had no interest in creating a country only to to see it violently overthrown from within.

I think it's silly to read some "Ayn Randian" doctrine of "suspicion of government" (a reaction to 20th century Fascism/Communism) into an 18th century document written at a time when thoughts of those sorts of ideologies weren't even on the horizon.

Quotes from the debate on the 2nd Amendment:

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Hamilton

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Cox

And, probably the most pertinent: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants", "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Jefferson.

It wasn't the reason for the second amendment, but it was a strongly considered and appreciated part of it at the time.

It's quite clear from the writings of the time that the 2nd Ammendment's intent was very much to protect the nation from a government that had become tyrannical.

How on Earth you can claim that revolting against one's own government was a thought not even on the horizon for a nation that had just come about through precisely that mechanism is bewildering.

Yep. Jefferson vehemently believed that rebellion and revolution was not only healthy, but also necessary for governments, and leaving the power to do so with the people was essential. Of course, it's all total bobbins now, "the people" currently have about as much power against government as a moth does against a lightbulb. But that's what two-hundred odd years of power struggles and exploiting loopholes will do, I suppose.

Relevant to the thread - apparently the UK curriculums are being messed around with. From Key Stage 3 onwards, only things after 1700 will be considered. Goodbye, Romans. Farewell, Medieval Kings. So long, The Tudors.

meme wrote:
Apparently that's all they're going to be teaching now, too. The curriculum is favouring memorising raw facts and dates and names than exploration of reasons and context and motivations etc.

Basically, they're going to be raising a generation of people suitable for pub quizzes and not a lot else.

There is a point where raw facts are really very useful, of course: but ONLY when providing examples for/of more abstract things, like context and motive.

I get the feeling Gove has the idea that somehow he's going to produce a lot more old-school Isaiah Berlin types, when anyone who knows anything about such people knows that the whole bloody point of them was that the very impressive amount they knew was only useful because they could illuminate fascinating topics (of all kinds, from arts to science) by this 'raw' knowledge - they used, rather than hoarded, facts.

Same with anyone worth their salt today. Unless you're really in the business of quantitative data analysis, and even then it's bloody clear it's not just about raw facts.

meme wrote:
Apparently that's all they're going to be teaching now, too. The curriculum is favouring memorising raw facts and dates and names than exploration of reasons and context and motivations etc.

Basically, they're going to be raising a generation of people suitable for pub quizzes and not a lot else.

Jesus, that's beyond retarded. Surely though it's going to involve a two part test where one section is facts and the other answering an actual question? Isn't that what we had before?

You're supposed to use facts to answer more complicated questions. Just knowing the date of the French revolution isn't very important if you know nothing of its importance or the reason why it happened.

This is why people find history boring, it will put a whole generation of kids off history. Although it was pretty terrible when i was at school as well, very nearly killing my interest. One of my teachers thought saving private ryan was about Dunkirk, and spent half a lesson talking about it.

Mary Beard claimed not to be able to remember many dates and said it didn't matter.

Battle of Hastings? 1066!
What happened there? Dunno.

Definition of history
noun (plural histories)

1 [mass noun] the study of past events, particularly in human affairs: medieval European history
the past considered as a whole: letters that have changed the course of history

2 the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing: the history of the Empire a patient with a complicated medical history
an eventful past: the group has quite a history
a past characterized by a particular thing: his family had a history of insanity

3a continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution: a history of the labour movement
a historical play: Shakespeare’s comedies, histories, and tragedies

I studied history at GCSE, A Level and degree level and what makes it so useful as well as interesting is the analytical and interpretive approach. It makes no sense whatsoever to dilute this side of it.

The Industrial Revolution caused a shift to urban conurbations by
what had been largely agrarian population and communities and so
forth. This led to very poor living conditions, and in his journal Samuel
Pepys gives a particularly harrowing account of one man, whom he
describes thus: 'He had scurvy and rickets and was covered from head to foot in festering sores. All in all he was quite the most ghastly apparition of a man I had ever seen.'

I just had a nice lunch with a friend. His work is on the interplay of cultures in the Middle East during the Crusades. Mine is on Britain, Russia and Communism/ideologies of the early part of the 20th C (broadly).

We were discussing some interesting quirks: for instance, he mentioned that often, in some places at certain times, Muslims would go to Christian shrines and wash themselves, i.e. get baptised, because it was considered good luck, and the Christians thought 'brilliant, here comes a convert!' Only the Muslims, as it was good luck, wanted to be 'baptised' multiple times! Less funnily, double-think, knowing contradictory ideological tenets, etc.

We talked about pluralism of values: how people know/don't know they hold multiple values, each born of multiple/differing identities that share/don't share particular aspects of your self. I.e. when I am in 'football fan' mode I don't talk rot like this, but that rot is still part of me. That I know I desire liberty and equality as political ideals, and they're not suited for equal co-existence. That someone will love the idea of a society, and yet hate the steps to get there, or will loathe something abstract whilst admiring the particular examples of that thing (e.g. 'I hate blacks, but my friend here, who happens to be black, is alright, really!)

Ultimately it led us to agree that we both love history for the subtlety it offers: the intricacies of ideology, biology, culture, society and time all bearing down on individuals and groups, and what that says about our experiences also.